Pages

Wednesday, August 21, 2013

Two cannot walk together unless they be agreed(Amos 3:3; 2 Corinthians 6:14-18).

Why We Use The King James Version of the Bible

By Dr. Richard Flanders

Ours is a church that has decided to stick to the old "King JamesVersion" of the Bible. The multiplication of "modern language" EnglishBibles is one of the most important religious phenomena of recentyears. It is our view that the production of these new translations hasserved to undermine the spiritual foundations of our country andweaken the message of her churches. The new versions are not reallybetter than the old one. The abandonment of the King James Bible byour churches has not been a good thing. We are going to keep the oldBible for several compelling reasons.1. Theological ReasonsSome new Bibles are dangerous because of the theological bias oftheir translators. The Revised Standard Version of the Bible waspresented to the public as a completed work in 1952. It wasauthorized by the notoriously liberal National Council of Churches. Theunbelieving bias of the majority of the translators is evident in suchreadings as Isaiah 7:14:"Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold a youngwoman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his nameImmanuel." (Revised Standard Version)The difference between this reading and the way the verse reads inthe King James Version is very important. The old Bible says that "avirgin shall conceive, and bear a son." The liberal bias against thedoctrine of the virgin birth of Christ is reflected in the R.S.V.translation of this verse. The word used in the original Hebrew haslong been understood to mean specifically a virgin in this context, andis incorrectly rendered "young woman" by the R.S.V. To make mattersworse, this liberal version translates Matthew 1:23, "Behold, a virginshall conceive and bear a son." This is a correct rendering of theGreek, but with the incorrect translation of Isaiah 7:14 in the sameBible, the impression is given that Matthew misquoted Isaiah. Not onlyis the doctrine of the virgin birth undermined in the Revised StandardVersion, but also the doctrine of the infallibility of the Bible! Nofundamentalist Christian would accept as his standard a theologicallyliberal translation of the Bible like the R.S.V.The Good News Bible (or, properly, Today's English Version) wastranslated by neo-orthodox Richard Bratcher, and purposely replacesthe word "blood" with the word "death" in many New Testamentpassages that refer to the blood of Christ (such as Colossians 1:20,Hebrews 10:19, and Revelation 1:5). Bratcher also replaces the word"virgin" with "girl" in Luke 1:27. His theological bias ruins histranslation. Other versions, such as the Phillips translation and the theNew English Bible, were also produced by liberal or neo-orthodoxreligionists. For this reason, we will not use them.2. Textual ReasonsMany in the pew do not know that most of the more than 100 newversions of the Bible are not translated from the same Hebrew andGreek texts that the King James translators used! When somebodysays that the translation of a certain verse in the King James Version is"unfortunate," usually the problem is text rather than translation. Inthe late 1800's, a committee of British and American scholars beganwork on a revision of the King James Bible. It was decided by themthat the Greek text of the New Testament used in the translation ofthe old Bible was seriously defective. Although that text representedthe New Testament as it had been accepted by most Christians overthe centuries, it was spurned because it disagreed with some of theolder manuscripts. Almost all of the new versions are actuallytranslations of the new Greek text generated by this committee. Thisnew text is significantly different from the traditional text.When the reader comes to John 7:53 - 8:11 even in conservativetranslations such as the New American Standard Bible or the NewInternational Version, he finds the whole story of the woman taken inadultery set apart with lines or brackets. A note is placed in relation tothe bracketed section that says something like this:"The earliest and most reliable manuscripts do not have John 7:53 -8:11."Something similar is done to the great commission in Mark 16:9-20.What the textual critics of a century ago were saying, and what thenew versions are saying, is that a large amount of the New Testamentread, believed, preached, and obeyed by most of our spiritualforefathers was actually uninspired material added to the text! If thisnew textual theory were true, it would be revolutionary news to thechurch. However, the new theory is still very controversial. Jesus said,"Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedethout of the mouth of God." (Matthew 4:4) Every man needs every wordof God! A man's needs will not be met unless he has received "everyword" that God has spoken. So said the Lord Jesus. Jesus also said,"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not passaway." (Matthew 24:35). With that promise, Christ assured us that thevery words we need in order to live as we should would be preservedthroughout the ages, through wars and persecutions and disasters,even through the fiery end of creation!So-called "textual criticism" is more faith than it is science. If onestudies the thousands of Greek manuscripts of the New Testamentwith the belief that God has preserved His Word through the years, hewill come to different conclusions than one who studies the samedocuments with the belief that such preservation is unlikely. Much ofthe work is guess work and many of the conclusions are debatable. Forthis reason, thoughtful conservative Christians will decide that it issafer to stay with the traditional text than to adopt the revised one.The only widely used English versions that are translated from thetraditional text are the King James Version and the New King James.3. Philosophical ReasonsChristians ought to be interested in having the very words of God,since this is what Jesus said we need! The King James Version is whatscholars call "formal equivalence" to the original text. Others,however, seek "dynamic equivalence." The "formal equivalence"approach seeks to express in English the meaning of the words inGreek. The "dynamic equivalence" approach seeks to express themeaning of the writer in modern idiom. Anyone who takes seriouslyour Lord's admonition in Matthew 4:4 will want a "formal equivalence"translation. Several of the new versions do not offer this to us. The socalled"Living Bible" does not even pretend to be a translation of thewords. Copies of this book clearly identify it as a "paraphrase" of God'sWord. Dr. Kenneth Taylor wrote the Living Bible, and freely admittedthat it was his paraphrase of the Scriptures. In other words, he wasputting the Bible into his own words. When a pastor reads John 3:16to his congregation Sunday morning, that is one thing. When herephrases it in his own words in order to explain what the versemeans, that is another thing. Preachers make it clear when they arereading God's Word and when they are paraphrasing it. It's acceptableto paraphrase the Scripture in explaining it, but it is unacceptable toconfuse the paraphrase with the actual Word! The Living Bible is not aBible; it is Dr. Taylor's paraphrase of the Bible. Please keep in mindthe distinction. Sadly, the result of Dr. Taylor's paraphrasing was notalways very helpful, even though he claims to hold "a rigid evangelicalposition" in his theology. For example, in I Samuel 20:30, heintroduced vile profanity into Holy Writ without warrant from theoriginal text!The very popular New International Version is a "dynamic equivalence"translation. Its "rival" among "conservative" modern versions is theNew American Standard Bible, which is a "formal equivalency"translation (but of the new text). The looseness of the N.I.V.'stranslation is admitted by the publishers and well-known. The scholarswho did the translation believe that it is possible and beneficial to putinto English what the writers of scripture meant, rather than what theyactually said. One great problem with this approach is the element ofinterpretation that is introduced into the translation process. Totranslate is to put it into English. To interpret is to explain what itmeans. Experts will say that all translation involves someinterpretation, even when this is not the object of the translators.However, much more interpretation will go on when the composers ofa new version try to convey the thoughts rather than the words.Advertising for the New International Version has often includedreferences to the translation of Job 36:33. Promoters of the N.I.V. askus which version we would rather read."The noise thereof sheweth concerning it, the cattle also concerningthe vapour." (King James Version)"His thunder announces the coming storm; even the cattle makeknown its approach." (New International Version)Without question, the N.I.V. reading is clearer. However, whichtranslation represents more accurately the meaning of the Hebrewwords in this verse? The truth is that this is a hard verse to read andunderstand in Hebrew as well as in the King James Version! Any goodtechnical commentary will tell you this. the New International makes itclearer than the original Hebrew! Actually, the N.I.V. interprets for uswhat the translation committee thinks the passage means, rather thanwhat it says. The King James Version tells us what it says and leavesto us, as much as possible, the business of interpreting what it means.This is an important distinction. If we let the translators interpret theBible for us, we might as well let the priest do it! Our belief in thePriesthood of Believers calls on us to reject highly interpretiveversions.4. Cultural ReasonsProverbs 22:28 says, "Remove not the ancient landmark, which thyfathers have set."In the spirit of the fifth commandment, we are to honor the traditionsgiven to us by the previous generations of our people. Of course, ifsuch tradition contradicts Scripture, we are to reject it in favor of whatthe Bible says. "Why do ye also transgress the commandment of Godby your tradition?" (Matthew 15:3)We never elevate tradition to the same level of authority as Scripture.But we should give our forefathers "the benefit of the doubt." Weshould also be careful to preserve all we can that is truly Christianabout our culture.The King James Version of the Bible has played an important andunique role in the development of American culture. It could be saidthat the foundation of our society was Holy Scripture. The theology ofthe Bible influenced the ideas behind our Constitution. The language ofthe King James Bible was scattered throughout our early literature.The revivals that formed and changed our culture resulted from thepreaching of Bible texts. For many years, Americans knew a certainamount of Scripture by heart. Many or most could quote at least partof the Twenty-third Psalm, and recognize the Beatitudes, the TenCommandments, and parts of the Sermon on the Mount when quoted.But now the influence of the Bible has waned significantly. One reasonfor the decline of Biblical influence has been the loss of a standardversion of the Bible.For most of our first two hundred years as a nation, the King JamesVersion was the Bible to most Americans. Even after so-called"modern" versions became popular, the King James Bible continued tobe the version memorized, quoted, and publicly read most often. Withthe demise of the old Bible, our country has been left without astandard text of Scripture. Who can quote the Twenty-third Psalm anymore? Who knows how to repeat the Christmas story? The questionalways arises, "Which version?" Everybody realizes that our nation'sspiritual and moral foundations have been crumbling, but few haveunderstood how the multiplication of Bible versions has contributed tothe decay. We will stick with the King James Version out of concern forour country' future, if for no other reason! Why should conservativeChristians join in the mad movement to throw away the standards thatmade our country good? Our Constitution is jealously guarded againstchange by an elaborate and difficult amendment process. If it takestwo-thirds of Congress and three-fourths of the states to change onesentence in the Constitution, why should the churches be so willing toaccept great changes in the Bible without serious and extensive "dueprocess"?5. Practical ReasonsBelieve it or not, some of the features most criticized in the KingJames Bible are among the best reasons to keep it! For example,consider the "thee's" and "thou's." The King James Version was notwritten in the everyday language of people on the street in 1611. Itwas written in high English, a very precise form of our language. Inmodern English, the second person pronoun is expressed with oneword, whether in the singular or the plural. That word is "you." Mostother European languages have both a singular and a plural pronounin the second person, as well as in the first and third persons. The firstperson singular pronoun in the nominative case, for example, is "I,"while the plural is "we." The third person singular pronoun (also in thenominative case) is "he," while the plural is "they." Modern English,however, has only "you" for all its second person pronoun uses. HighEnglish uses "thou" for the second person singular, and "you" for theplural! In this way, the King James Version lets us know whether theScripture means a singular "you" or a plural "you." "Thou" or "thee"mean one person's being addressed, and "ye" or "you" mean several.This feature often helps us interpret a passage.We also find the use of italics in the old Bible a great help. Thetranslators italicized words they put into the text that do not appear inthe original language. The new translations do not do this. Weappreciate the integrity of the ancient scholars in letting us know whatwas added and what was original, and are disappointed that moderntranslators have let us down in this area.The matter of quotation marks is also a question of importance. TheKing James Version does not use them, because the Hebrew andGreek manuscripts do not have them. The reader determines where aquotation begins and ends by the context, and by all other means ofinterpretation at his disposal. The new versions do not give us theluxury of deciding the extent of quotations ourselves because theyhave inserted quote marks according to the translators' interpretationsof the various passages. John 1:15-18 and 3:27-36 present examplesof places in the Bible where the length of the quotation is a matter ofinterpretation.Such features make the King James Version the most helpfultranslation of the Bible in English for the serious reader. Even the"New King James," which is translated from the traditional texts,denies us the practical help of high English, italicized additions, andthe absence of quotation marks.For all of these reasons, it just makes good sense for conservative,Bible-believing churches to keep the old King James Bible as theirstandard text. The new versions present too many problems andsimply are not fit to replace the English version we have trusted for solong. Let's stick with the King James! The movement to abandon it willmove us from clarity to confusion, from authority to anarchy, fromfaith to doubt. May we never make such a move!